On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 2:24 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric Sunshine <ericsunshine@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > A common way to work around the problem is to wrap a subshell around the
> > variable assignments and function call, thus ensuring that the
> > assignments are short-lived. However, these days, a more ergonomic
> > approach is to employ test_env() which is tailor-made for this specific
> > use-case.
>
> OK. I am not sure if that is "ergonomic", though. An explict
> subshell has a good documentation value that even though we call
> test_commit there, we do not care about the committer timestamps
> subsequent commits would record, and we do not mind losing the
> effect of test_tick from this invocation of test_commit. Hiding
> all of that behind test_env loses the documentation value.
>
> We could resurrect it by explicitly passing "--no-tick" to
> test_commit, though ;-).
Your mention of `test_commit` reminded me that, these days, it accepts
an --author switch which seems tailor-made for what this chunk of code
in this test is actually checking: namely, that the root commit of the
orphan branch has "Parsnip <root@xxxxxxxxxxx>" as its author. So an
even simpler approach is to change it to:
test_commit --author "Parsnip <root@xxxxxxxxxxx>" second-root &&
That conveys precisely that the test is interested in overriding the
author for that one commit.
